Email wants £400 for unauthorised image use

Mr Badger · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:05

I've received an email from License Compliance Services [email protected]al in respect of a website I administer, asking me to prove that I have "a valid license(s) or other authorisation" for a particular image or pay them £400.

My first thought was that this was a scam. However, looking into it the image to which they refer does exist. It's actually in a pdf copy of a newsletter from 2009 that is hosted on "my" website. The guy that created the newsletter in question is unable to help as he apparently no longer has access to his emails from 2009, however we both think that the image and associated story were part of a press release that was sent out by an organisation for onward distribution and reuse.

Whilst I attempt to resolve this particular situation, it has got me thinking about wider implications:

If LCS can find an image in a fairly large pdf document dating from 2009, presumably they must be actively searching the web for images. I'm guessing there is no time limit or other restriction on this? Makes me wonder what other old images could be lurking out there that could potentially give rise to a claim...

If you are sent an image for use (say from an individual who claims to own it or as part of a news release) how can you prove in later years that you have a "valid license" especially if the email trail no longer exists?

Also, what happens with images that were used on the understanding that they were "free" public domain without copyright, if subsequently there is a claim that someone now owns the copyright?

For clarity, in the event that the £400 does have to be paid it won't be coming out of my pocket, so (fortunately) that isn't an issue here.

Jono · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:07

I could be wrong but I don't think ignorance is a defence here. i.e. "We thought they were free use/public domain"

Mr Badger · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:10

Jono said:
I could be wrong but I don't think ignorance is a defence here. i.e. "We thought they were free use/public domain"

I doubt it is. Bit of a pain if the image was made available that way (either by email or on a website) and then years later you are told otherwise.

Also, what about images that get widely distributed as memes and the like?

Mynight · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:17

Are you able to link to the pdf in question? There are instances where a license isn't needed and depending where LCS is located it may be applicable.

Are you sure they have the power to act on the owners behalf?

scorza · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:22

Mr Badger said:
If you are sent an image for use (say from an individual who claims to own it or as part of a news release) how can you prove in later years that you have a "valid license" especially if the email trail no longer exists?

Basically you can't I'm afraid. IANAL, but you should probably have some sort of Intellectual Property Register for everything on your website and store things like licences and consent emails that give you consent to use other people's IP.

One thing I don't understand though is these people who are chasing you for the £400 - are they claiming to be the copyright holders or acting on behalf of the copyright holder? They surely need to provide some sort of proof that they are one or the other before you can handover some cash to them, otherwise they could just be anyone.

Mr Badger · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:26

Mynight said:
Are you able to link to the pdf in question? There are instances where a license isn't needed and depending where LCS is located it may be applicable.

Are you sure they have the power to act on the owners behalf?

First thing we did was to remove the image in question so it is no longer available to view.

No, I'm not sure whether LCS has the power to act here. They claim to be doing so on behalf of "Press Association Images" so I'm assuming they do for now whilst pondering the wider implications of this sort of activity.

Haggisman · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:33

Firstly, IANAL and none of this is legal advice - it's just the questions I would be asking

a) Can they prove that THEY (or whoever they represent) have ownership of that particular image?

b) How have they arrived at the figure of £400? Can they show that there has been a loss on the part of the copyright holder for that amount, or a gain on the part of the person allegedly using the image without consent? Or is it more likely "a figure they've just pulled out of their **** which is low enough to a) sound legit, and b) have a reasonable chance of being paid, whilst still being high enough to be worth chasing"?

To be honest it sounds like a phishing scam.

Yes they may have a legitimate claim, but I doubt if it went to court they would win anywhere near the £400 they are asking for.

It's probably more a case of "send out 1,000,000 emails to small websites which may have an unlicenced copyright image and hope for 0.001% of them to just pay up"

Dis86 · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:40

Haggis has echoed my thoughts there. Sound like a bunch of chancers.

Art · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:44

Haggisman said:
b) How have they arrived at the figure of £400?

They answer that on their FAQ page:

The settlement is calculated by taking the average cost of licensing, plus a portion of costs incurred in the pursuit of the unlicensed use.
Using an image without a license ultimately costs more than properly licensing the image before use.

Can they show that there has been a loss on the part of the copyright holder for that amount, or a gain on the part of the person allegedly using the image without consent?

Do you actually need to show that for a copyright case? I'm not a lawyer either, but I was under the impression that it doesn't matter whether you gained/caused a loss, you republished something without the legal right to do so and that itself is the issue.

It's probably more a case of "send out 1,000,000 emails to small websites which may have an unlicenced copyright image and hope for 0.001% of them to just pay up"

I'd agree, it sounds like a spammy scare tactic. Something along the lines of build a bot to auto-scan documents on the web, and if you get a positive hit then auto-generate a scary sounding email.

Mr Badger · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:47

Here's the main block of text from the email:

Press Association Images, a global provider of digital imagery, has become aware of an instance(s) of its represented imagery being used on your company's website. Our records do not indicate that valid licensing has been issued to your company for the use of the image(s). If your company does in fact hold a valid license(s) for the image(s) in question, please provide any relevant documentation (valid license, purchase records, documentation of authorisation). We will review your documentation and update our records if appropriate.

This letter has been sent to you by License Compliance Services ("LCS"), a company that specialises in assisting copyright holders with the management and protection of their content. With regards to this case, Press Association Images has mandated LCS to resolve the matter of your online use of Press Association Images's imagery.

Use of imagery represented by Press Association Images without proper licensing is considered copyright infringement and entitles Press Association Images to pursue compensation for infringing uses (Copyright Design and Patents Act of 1988).

kitfit1 · 30 Mar 2016 at 15:49

A search of LCS throws up a company that seems on the whole to engage in phishing and outright lies to extract money from it's targets.
Have you actually done both a Google image search and a Tineye image search on the pic that you were hosting ? If not, i would if i were you.
If the Exif data has not been stripped out of the image, then have a look at it and see if there is anything in it about the copyright holder. Assuming the copyright data is there, check it against any other pics that might show up in the Google and Tineye searches. If they match, then at least you will know who the copyright holder actually is.

Edit: I forgot to ask if you have also done a search against the Press Association's database ? Just to make shure the image is actually there.

Maccy · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:06

Personally, I would ignore it. This is not legal advice though

mid_gen · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:07

Don't do anything until they provide their "valid license, purchase records, documentation of authorisation" for the image.

flowrider99 · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:14

Did the image have a copyright notice on it? If not then I don't think you can be accused of infringement. They sound like a bunch of chancers to me.

Edrof · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:14

Mr Badger said:
If LCS can find an image in a fairly large pdf document dating from 2009, presumably they must be actively searching the web for images. I'm guessing there is no time limit or other restriction on this? Makes me wonder what other old images could be lurking out there that could potentially give rise to a claim...

Getty certainly have bots trawling the internet for their images. When one is found an employee phones up (or emails) and demands money.

Cosimo · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:26

Sounds like extortion to me without any proof or evidence to back up their claim. I would ignore it.

Puzzled · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:27

This whole area of law is an absolute minefield.

Even when you look at the standard (and enhanced) licenses from stock image sites they still have loads of clauses and exceptions that means your licence might mean diddly squat and the legal protection they offer won't be valid. Some of them even threaten to sue you for any damages they receive if the image you use is involved in legal action.

Seems the only way to be safe is to either draw / photograph it yourself (but make sure it doesn't look like anyone else's image) or pay an artist to do it and get them to sign over the rights but loads of them don't like to do that.

I know artists / content creators need protection but the way the system works at the min is just a serious pain in the bum

aardvark · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:31

sounds like a scam, ignore it.
If they are serious then their lawyers can find/contact yourself or your lawyers in a proper way, as opposed to an email that sounds very scammy.

Amp34 · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:33

Sounds like a load of chamfers/scam. I'd ignore it and take down the image on the of chance. The latter would probably help if it turned out to be true.

Haggisman said:
Firstly, IANAL and none of this is legal advice - it's just the questions I would be asking

a) Can they prove that THEY (or whoever they represent) have ownership of that particular image?

b) How have they arrived at the figure of £400? Can they show that there has been a loss on the part of the copyright holder for that amount, or a gain on the part of the person allegedly using the image without consent? Or is it more likely "a figure they've just pulled out of their **** which is low enough to a) sound legit, and b) have a reasonable chance of being paid, whilst still being high enough to be worth chasing"?

To be honest it sounds like a phishing scam.

Yes they may have a legitimate claim, but I doubt if it went to court they would win anywhere near the £400 they are asking for.

It's probably more a case of "send out 1,000,000 emails to small websites which may have an unlicenced copyright image and hope for 0.001% of them to just pay up"

B is irrelevant. They don't have to show loss. They are charging you for a licence to use the image. They can charge what they want. If it's legit you can pay them and continue to use the image, or they can take you court and try and get the money that way. It doesn't seem a particularly high a cost for an image, and if legit all they would probably have to show is its just the standard price they charge for an image to other clients.

That said this just sounds like a scam.

Tom0 · 30 Mar 2016 at 16:36

Mr Badger said:
If LCS can find an image in a fairly large pdf document dating from 2009, presumably they must be actively searching the web for images...

This is the bit that screams scam to me.

It is more likely that a scammer came across it (as there are way more of them) than a coincidental LCS "searcher".

They're just using the name to exploit you.

Ignore it.